Case 2602109/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mark Watkiss v Croner Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602109/2019
- Decision date
- 5 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mark Watkiss
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that, following a preliminary hearing held on 01/05/2020, Mr Mark Watkiss was ordered to pay a deposit of £50 in respect of each of two allegations, making £100 in total. The order was sent to him on 05/05/2020, and the judgment records that he failed to pay the deposit.
The claims identified in the judgment were unfair dismissal and the respondent's failure to make reasonable adjustments. Because the deposits were not paid, both complaints were struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records no compensation or other remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £50 deposit ordered for this allegation. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments complaint was struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant failed to pay the £50 deposit ordered for this allegation. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.